Government contracting model for public bus industry
-
^Were it so easy. Might as well build BRT at this rate. If we need to build these to improve frequency, fares will definately raise, not just to fund the flyovers/underpasses, but to also compensate those whose land is anquired. Land is a scarce resource in SG. It is either we maintain the current rate, and hope fares don't i crease, or we give commuters a better quality of aervice, at the expenses and risk of increasing fares. I guess that if we want premium services, we have to be prepared to pay premium prices. I personally thinks that PTO are trying to improve the situation, while trying to keep fare raises to a minimum, but there is only so much they can do. So many factors are out of their control.
Back to topic: based on how the new Bulim depot is the first of the two depots built to be contracted out, next one might be Loyang. If so, which services might be in Loyang's package?
-
Originally posted by iveco:
Maybe WTS and foreign operator can tie up, like Carbikebus predicted.
A possible solution, local experience + overseas expertise. That would be great as long as the parties can work together.
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
some foreign transport consultants criticised saying the bus routes should be kept up to max 18km only to ensure service reliability. I disagree. If a short bus route ends up in traffic bottleneck; it will still cockup the bus schedule no matter what. Will a short bus route bring greater customer satisfaction? i dont think so. what we need is a series of semi-express buses from mid to relative long haul. Semi-express buses to avoid traffic bottlenecks whenever possible or kept to a minimal to ensure better reliability. how about building flyover bus lanes above busy roads and expressways?
To be honest, it depends on the percentage of the route plying on semi-expressway roads and expressways (such as lornie rd, whitney rd/pie, lentor ave, tamp ave 10, etc..) vs those running in city center/populated area.
18km is alot when there are passengers along every/most stops attempting to board and alight (e.g. sv 851/106/147/etc) but not so much when those routes with a larger portion of express sector is considered (e.g. 97/197/857/TPE svcs/etc).
Most routes in other city center e.g. London don't run for more than 20km, and even if they do, there are a huge variety of short trips (so much that they don't even bother to name/number it in london) to supplement the most travelled segments. Ops control can also choose to cut short a particular bus' trip and push passengers to the following bus when it has been delayed beyond the threshold; or even request the bus to downroute (with passengers onboard!) to a particular stop, and therefore everything is running "live" instead of being completely pre-planned.
This therefore allows service reliability, without incurring expensive infrastructure to build special lanes and flyovers for buses. I also believe this is the eventual goal of LTA having set up the bsrf and contracting framework.
One point to note especially is that the fact that buses in singapore have been designed to be medium haul public transport (trunk services that bridges many estates and areas of interests i.e. 147/198 and many other trunk services) as well as being the last mile connection (feeders) while the MRT is designed for long distances. Only when there are corridors (e.g. TPE/PIE/ECP/etc) where there are no MRT connectivity, then buses become the long haul transport options (e.g. expressway routes 161 168 858 969 97 197 36 etc).
This has been the policy from LTA for years and the fact is it wont be easily changed by asking for semi-express buses to be implemented (also note the low capacity of these buses vs even the shortest CCL train).
-
since the bus routes are going to be divided into 12 packages; would it be better to buy more varieties of bus models and placing 1 or 2 models per package? Different operators got different likings of the bus models. maybe this may help to increase competition and attract more players to tender?
-
I got a strong feeling that the new player will win this first tender,2nd tender might be SMRT and last one should goes to SBST..
-
Originally posted by JurongWestresident:
It seems that the concern is only on the livery.
I have a suggestion:
LTA can organise a drawing competition on livery design, and adopt ideas/concepts from the best entries into the common LTA livery.
Alternatively, LTA can consult SOTA, NAFA, the Design schools in our Polytechnics, etc. on how to design the common LTA livery.
Either suggestion would at least ensure that the common LTA livery looks nice. If very well designed, it may become our national identity, similar to the iconic red livery at London.
JWr, we are indeed airing concerns about the livery as a standard livery means another part of SG has gone to history...
A one tone color is monotonous. Do bear in mind LTA does not many creative people working in it, so taking into account that...
We should not blindly wholesale import London Red or any iconic colour...
That will be more policy changes on bus contracting model... -
This is a fictional story. However, this is based on previous incidents around the world (e.g. Macau, UK) and is a possible scenario that should be taken into consideration:
Merlion Transit, owned by Transport Tycoon, was set up to bid for the first parcel tender. The owner is an experienced overseas operator that has businesses in different parts of the world. Merlion Transit is able to use its expertise and knowledge to meet the quality aspects of the bid. However knowing that the first parcel tender was vital to setting a foothold as a Singapore operator given that the government is likely to limit the number of operators and competition is extremely fierce, Merlion Transit decided to undercut everyone else for the first parcel tender thinking that it would be able to recoup the amount when it gain other parcel tenders in the future.
In 2015, Merlion Transit won the first two parcel tenders and is set to become the third major bus operator in Singapore. However, just before the handover of routes to Merlion Transit the incumbent bus operators announced a $500 salary raise to all BCs to encourage them to stay rather than to go over to the new operator. Merlion Transit faced difficult questions from new prospective drivers who are much less inclined to accept the lower salary, and had to comply with the government framework to have the BCs not worse off than their current situation. Not wanting to cause a industrial dispute, Merlion Transit raised the salaries of BCs by $600.
In November 2017, about a year after the general elections where the ruling party won comfortably after touting how the new competitive tender system brought benefits to public transport and resolved the bad times since 2011, Merlion Transit found itself to be in serious financial trouble. They realized that the current salary they were paying was unsustainable, and they had serious underestimated the running costs when they first bid for the contract. Furthermore, diesel prices have soared due to world events and while they were given the latest fleet of buses to operate, they realized that they have been assigned the powerful, gas guzzlers. Other rival operators have raised the salaries of the drivers further to entice them to stay, as the industry as a whole still lacked drivers. Merlion Transit has not given a substantial increase since then and were pressured by their staff to do so. Unhappy with the disparity in remuneration, the staff threatened to take industrial action.
On 15 December 2017, Merlion Transit had no more cash flow to continue operations and pay BCs their monthly salaries. The government has refused Merlion Transit's plea for increased subsidy. Transport Tycoon refused to bail the company out, knowing that he is going to exit the bus business in Singapore anyway. Merlion Transit declares bankruptcy. None of the services contracted to Merlion Transit operated that day, affecting 25% of the island's bus services.
What would the government do?
-
Originally posted by Acx1688:
JWr, we are indeed airing concerns about the livery as a standard livery means another part of SG has gone to history...
A one tone color is monotonous. Do bear in mind LTA does not many creative people working in it, so taking into account that...
We should not blindly wholesale import London Red or any iconic colour...
That will be more policy changes on bus contracting model...if I'm not wrong; i think LTA engaged a creative professional to create those big banners outside the MRT stns and also inside the BSEP buses such as those cartoons to encourage people to move in.
Since there are total 12 packages; i hope there is 1 new bus corporate name with its own livery for each package. ie total got 12 different corporate names with different liveries. Then; at the side of the bus with a small display: This service is brought to you by (company of successful tenderer)
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
if I'm not wrong; i think LTA engaged a creative professional to create those big banners outside the MRT stns and also inside the BSEP buses such as those cartoons to encourage people to move in.
Since there are total 12 packages; i hope there is 1 new bus corporate name with its own livery for each package. ie total got 12 different corporate names with different liveries. Then; at the side of the bus with a small display: This service is brought to you by (company of successful tenderer)
You will need to pray hard, very hard. Even Melbourne is getting rid of its > 12 different corporate liveries in favour of a single livery (same applies to Sydney, NSW).
In Perth where this model is based upon, "this service is proudly brought to you by" is a small decal placed next to the Transperth logo.
-
The ruling party won't win comfortably. They would be lucky enough to hang in there by a thread as a minority government.
Also, industrial action by essential service workers is forbidden in Singapore by law.
However, you have raised a disturbing scenario. We need to stop this from happening, if ever.
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
if I'm not wrong; i think LTA engaged a creative professional to create those big banners outside the MRT stns and also inside the BSEP buses such as those cartoons to encourage people to move in.
Since there are total 12 packages; i hope there is 1 new bus corporate name with its own livery for each package. ie total got 12 different corporate names with different liveries. Then; at the side of the bus with a small display: This service is brought to you by (company of successful tenderer)
i think they will just use the downtown line train livery instead...
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:This is a fictional story. However, this is based on previous incidents around the world (e.g. Macau, UK) and is a possible scenario that should be taken into consideration:
Merlion Transit, owned by Transport Tycoon, was set up to bid for the first parcel tender. The owner is an experienced overseas operator that has businesses in different parts of the world. Merlion Transit is able to use its expertise and knowledge to meet the quality aspects of the bid. However knowing that the first parcel tender was vital to setting a foothold as a Singapore operator given that the government is likely to limit the number of operators and competition is extremely fierce, Merlion Transit decided to undercut everyone else for the first parcel tender thinking that it would be able to recoup the amount when it gain other parcel tenders in the future.
In 2015, Merlion Transit won the first two parcel tenders and is set to become the third major bus operator in Singapore. However, just before the handover of routes to Merlion Transit the incumbent bus operators announced a $500 salary raise to all BCs to encourage them to stay rather than to go over to the new operator. Merlion Transit faced difficult questions from new prospective drivers who are much less inclined to accept the lower salary, and had to comply with the government framework to have the BCs not worse off than their current situation. Not wanting to cause a industrial dispute, Merlion Transit raised the salaries of BCs by $600.
In November 2017, about a year after the general elections where the ruling party won comfortably after touting how the new competitive tender system brought benefits to public transport and resolved the bad times since 2011, Merlion Transit found itself to be in serious financial trouble. They realized that the current salary they were paying was unsustainable, and they had serious underestimated the running costs when they first bid for the contract. Furthermore, diesel prices have soared due to world events and while they were given the latest fleet of buses to operate, they realized that they have been assigned the powerful, gas guzzlers. Other rival operators have raised the salaries of the drivers further to entice them to stay, as the industry as a whole still lacked drivers. Merlion Transit has not given a substantial increase since then and were pressured by their staff to do so. Unhappy with the disparity in remuneration, the staff threatened to take industrial action.
On 15 December 2017, Merlion Transit had no more cash flow to continue operations and pay BCs their monthly salaries. The government has refused Merlion Transit's plea for increased subsidy. Transport Tycoon refused to bail the company out, knowing that he is going to exit the bus business in Singapore anyway. Merlion Transit declares bankruptcy. None of the services contracted to Merlion Transit operated that day, affecting 25% of the island's bus services.
What would the government do?
Sounds alot like Reolian...
I see that the contracting has some differences from macau, being that:
1. Dual envelope tendering (consider based on technical plan first, followed by financial plans) - this i believe is to lower the risks of aggressive price bidding so that the team does not get blinded by the bid price at first.
2. Equal employment terms and taking over of staff - this is a double edged sword. The good thing is that the new company will not run into a similar situation as Reolian (lack of drivers, thus need for higher pay), but as you have said, if the incumbents decides to raise the salary before takeover, then this could be negative. That said, they themselves tend to not benefit from doing so as well.
3. No financial impact from huge amount of startup/fixed costs in terms of buses, i.e. buses will be provided for/leased from LTA instead of having to buy all of them at the start (i.e. Reolian's large fleet of Yutongs). - this greatly reduces the risk as well as the financial burden involved.
4. As well as the most important term: "During the contract period, the operator's bid price can be adjusted, taking into account changes in inflation, fuel costs and wage levels." which was not present initially in macau's tendering system but was added later as all 3 op-cos requested for it.
Although it is to by belief that such differences are enough to prevent such an incident to happen locally, LTA should still also ensure financial stability and backing of operators, especially foreign ones, as well as sound financial plans.
As well as an important thing to ponder about: Are people willing to pay the increases in fares (to keep the op co as well as LTA in the black) for such service quality improvements? How to measure the improvements required for raising fares by say 20cents?
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
i think they will just use the downtown line train livery instead...
Or this orange livery...
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
As well as an important thing to ponder about: Are people willing to pay the increases in fares (to keep the op co as well as LTA in the black) for such service quality improvements? How to measure the improvements required for raising fares by say 20cents?
since sg is so tiny and cramped up and we cant afford to let everyone own a car; hence got high COE and high costs to buy and maintain a car. take taxi also prob coz sometimes when u need find a taxi but cant? people get pissed up. So the govt should try their best to make public transport as attractive as possible yet reasonably cheap. otherwise lots of people esp the low-income and sandwiched class will get really fed-up. the govt should allow some of the revenue from vehicle owners to be used to subsidise public transport; and not find such excuses to increase fares.
-
Originally posted by SBS3688Y:
since sg is so tiny and cramped up and we cant afford to let everyone own a car; hence got high COE and high costs to buy and maintain a car. take taxi also prob coz sometimes when u need find a taxi but cant? people get pissed up. So the govt should try their best to make public transport as attractive as possible yet reasonably cheap. otherwise lots of people esp the low-income and sandwiched class will get really fed-up. the govt should allow some of the revenue from vehicle owners to be used to subsidise public transport; and not find such excuses to increase fares.
That is a challenging problem to solve my friend.
Cross subsidising which you mention is one way out, but the question is whether it will be sustainable. Just for SBST alone, the daily ridership is 2.8 million trips. Just a 10c subsidy in fares would equal 280k per day and 100 million in a year. That is not including SMRT's ridership and potiential growth. How much money is going to come out of COE just to fill up this gap?
I believe to LTA, it's a catch-22 situation. Bus service standards are poor = low ridership = more private car usage. So their solution is to improve bus service standards (which increases fares), while providing fare subsidy to the needy.
However, my opinion is that the solution lies in a overhaul of the entire bus services framework (including changes to the distance fare system) so that buses can operate more effectively, while matching current fares, as well as raising service standards. This however is unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
Sounds alot like Reolian...
I see that the contracting has some differences from macau, being that:
1. Dual envelope tendering (consider based on technical plan first, followed by financial plans) - this i believe is to lower the risks of aggressive price bidding so that the team does not get blinded by the bid price at first.
2. Equal employment terms and taking over of staff - this is a double edged sword. The good thing is that the new company will not run into a similar situation as Reolian (lack of drivers, thus need for higher pay), but as you have said, if the incumbents decides to raise the salary before takeover, then this could be negative. That said, they themselves tend to not benefit from doing so as well.
3. No financial impact from huge amount of startup/fixed costs in terms of buses, i.e. buses will be provided for/leased from LTA instead of having to buy all of them at the start (i.e. Reolian's large fleet of Yutongs). - this greatly reduces the risk as well as the financial burden involved.
4. As well as the most important term: "During the contract period, the operator's bid price can be adjusted, taking into account changes in inflation, fuel costs and wage levels." which was not present initially in macau's tendering system but was added later as all 3 op-cos requested for it.
Although it is to by belief that such differences are enough to prevent such an incident to happen locally, LTA should still also ensure financial stability and backing of operators, especially foreign ones, as well as sound financial plans.
As well as an important thing to ponder about: Are people willing to pay the increases in fares (to keep the op co as well as LTA in the black) for such service quality improvements? How to measure the improvements required for raising fares by say 20cents?
Macau is one factor I have considered but it was not the only one.
1. It is possible to develop an excellent plan and undercut the entire competition. In other words, trying to overpromise but underdeliver. This has happened to TOCs in UK. Even putting a finanical bond did not work in UK because the authorities in effect had to waive the loss of bond to ensure that the TOC in administration did not simply walk off from operations (which would have been very politically damaging).
2. There is a chronic shortage of drivers in the industry and wages suppressed for a very long time. Because the new model is based on ensuring that all runs are performed and finanical penalties are applied for lack of drivers everyday, there is a strong incentive to ensure full staffing. A new operator might be the moment when wages start to rise to the level where it should really be and new people are attracted to enter the industry. Macau is one example where companies tried to deal with a similar chronic shortage. But the impact could potentially be that our fares are going to go up more than simply twenty cents.
3. Easy come, easy go. If you have no assets, you have a lot less to lose, you are more likely to walk away at the first sign of big trouble. The case scenario is not without precedent. In LTA's history we have seen many construction projects where the contractor walked away or went bankrupt after they severely underbidded for projects, including the reamining stages of DTL which is now delayed precisely because one of the contractors have gone bust and work has stopped.
4. Given the characteristic of the government and the current political climate, I do not think LTA will want to give away subsidy too much. They will not want to anger the public by giving more subsidies at every request leading to a "too big to fail" situation that creates the impression that nothing has changed in the first place and fares are rising faster than now given government's unwilling to dig into its own coffers. Eventually something has got to give. In fact, London has recently cut subsidies, expecting operators to do more with less.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Macau is one factor I have considered but it was not the only one.
1. It is possible to develop an excellent plan and undercut the entire competition. In other words, trying to overpromise but underdeliver. This has happened to TOCs in UK. Even putting a finanical bond did not work in UK because the authorities in effect had to waive the loss of bond to ensure that the TOC in administration did not simply walk off from operations (which would have been very politically damaging).
2. There is a chronic shortage of drivers in the industry and wages suppressed for a very long time. Because the new model is based on ensuring that all runs are performed and finanical penalties are applied for lack of drivers everyday, there is a strong incentive to ensure full staffing. A new operator might be the moment when wages start to rise to the level where it should really be and new people are attracted to enter the industry. Macau is one example where companies tried to deal with a similar chronic shortage. But the impact could potentially be that our fares are going to go up more than simply twenty cents.
3. Easy come, easy go. If you have no assets, you have a lot less to lose, you are more likely to walk away at the first sign of big trouble. The case scenario is not without precedent. In LTA's history we have seen many construction projects where the contractor walked away or went bankrupt after they severely underbidded for projects, including the reamining stages of DTL which is now delayed precisely because one of the contractors have gone bust and work has stopped.
4. Given the characteristic of the government and the current political climate, I do not think LTA will want to give away subsidy too much. They will not want to anger the public by giving more subsidies at every request leading to a "too big to fail" situation that creates the impression that nothing has changed in the first place and fares are rising faster than now given government's unwilling to dig into its own coffers. Eventually something has got to give. In fact, London has recently cut subsidies, expecting operators to do more with less.
These are good counterarguments to the points that I raised.
That being said, instead of saying there is a chronic shortage of drivers, i would say there is a shortage of drivers who are currently ready to drive. Like i have mentioned in a previous post, there are people who are willing to join the industry (especially the part time scheme) but are being shown the door due to the long processing time.
To clarify as for point 4, what i meant was an increase of fares by LTA, which a portion of that will be distributed when such a situation arises. It is not to my belief that the govt will subsidise for inflation and fuel prices.
What would be your opinion as to the balance between service quality and fares?
-
There's one solution to the problem of shortage of bus drivers
SBST can introduce part-time driving jobs eg like 4 hours, just like SMRT, where many housewives drive for 4 hours and earn some pocket/grocery money. It's very good for S-Shifts and T-shifts
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
These are good counterarguments to the points that I raised.
That being said, instead of saying there is a chronic shortage of drivers, i would say there is a shortage of drivers who are currently ready to drive. Like i have mentioned in a previous post, there are people who are willing to join the industry (especially the part time scheme) but are being shown the door due to the long processing time.
To clarify as for point 4, what i meant was an increase of fares by LTA, which a portion of that will be distributed when such a situation arises. It is not to my belief that the govt will subsidise for inflation and fuel prices.
What would be your opinion as to the balance between service quality and fares?
Unless the government mandates a unified standard of vocational training (as with taxi licenses), my worry is that new entrants would be inclined to significantly shorten training time (with claims that this has worked in their own countries), with possible consequences as outlined below:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hsc-students-worry-as-bus-drivers-get-lost-20131015-2vjuw.html
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/berejiklian-sorry-as-commuters-in-west-hit-by-bus-chaos-after-handover-20131015-2vkub.html
The easier way out might be for the new entrant to lure qualified drivers away from the incumbent operators so that they can just undergo conversion (which takes as little as two weeks) rather than having to train recruits from scratch. And the best method to create an exodus of drivers from one company is...you've guessed it, what I have written in the case scenario.
If the wages does increase due to competition for qualified drivers, it is probable to have a scenario where there is a substansial increase in fares to account for this wage increase without seeing an improvement in service quality. This is akin to the outrage over the spike in prices for the World Cup and other football TV subscription packages due to the bidding war between cable TV operators.
Service improvements in my opinon has to come in the form of having a contingency plan when things go wrong, such as having spare buses ready for breakdowns, accidents, etc. The shortage on drivers alone prevent this from happening. Planners for too long are either complacent, ignored or lacked the ability to factor in these contingencies, leaving existing plans with little room for error. The current solution, in terms of routes and fleet addition, appears to be putting band-aid on legacy problems but not solving the underlying issues. One possible but difficult solution is to rethink the entire bus route network altogether.
-
Originally posted by SBS5010P:
There's one solution to the problem of shortage of bus drivers
SBST can introduce part-time driving jobs eg like 4 hours, just like SMRT, where many housewives drive for 4 hours and earn some pocket/grocery money. It's very good for S-Shifts and T-shifts
The problem with this is that the cost of training is very high in terms of opportunity, time and money.
It takes two months to train a single bus captain, with 2 months of full time pay, and there are already shortage in training slots.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
The problem with this is that the cost of training is very high in terms of opportunity, time and money.
It takes two months to train a single bus captain, with 2 months of full time pay, and there are already shortage in training slots.
yes.. so we have to resort to hire foreign bus drivers.... Unless training can be provided by private agencies?
-
Woah bloody hell. Singapore really so pathetic and brain-dead until must use LAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY for a public transport livery? Cannot be somthing more intuitive? Even this:
looks better than putting the name of a ministry there. or something like "Transperth".
-
Originally posted by lemon1974:
i think they will just use the downtown line train livery instead...
they have their own one already.
-
Originally posted by sgbuses:
Unless the government mandates a unified standard of vocational training (as with taxi licenses), my worry is that new entrants would be inclined to significantly shorten training time (with claims that this has worked in their own countries), with possible consequences as outlined below:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hsc-students-worry-as-bus-drivers-get-lost-20131015-2vjuw.html
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/berejiklian-sorry-as-commuters-in-west-hit-by-bus-chaos-after-handover-20131015-2vkub.html
The easier way out might be for the new entrant to lure qualified drivers away from the incumbent operators so that they can just undergo conversion (which takes as little as two weeks) rather than having to train recruits from scratch. And the best method to create an exodus of drivers from one company is...you've guessed it, what I have written in the case scenario.
If the wages does increase due to competition for qualified drivers, it is probable to have a scenario where there is a substansial increase in fares to account for this wage increase without seeing an improvement in service quality. This is akin to the outrage over the spike in prices for the World Cup and other football TV subscription packages due to the bidding war between cable TV operators.
Service improvements in my opinon has to come in the form of having a contingency plan when things go wrong, such as having spare buses ready for breakdowns, accidents, etc. The shortage on drivers alone prevent this from happening. Planners for too long are either complacent, ignored or lacked the ability to factor in these contingencies, leaving existing plans with little room for error. The current solution, in terms of routes and fleet addition, appears to be putting band-aid on legacy problems but not solving the underlying issues. One possible but difficult solution is to rethink the entire bus route network altogether.
Perhaps instead of having individual companies train bus captains, more could be done to provision for a organisation to manage bus operations. This should be seperate (but fully owned) by LTA.
My idea is that this organisation shall provide driver training courses (either self funded or contracted by the new PTOs) to all who are keen to be omnibus drivers/captains. The course should involve training in the two most used single deck bus types, as well basic maintaience training, fare equipment training, customer service, english language courses, as well as other necessary training.
In the case of a new applicant having taken up the course him/herself, the PTOs shall provide an additional incentive as well fully backpaying the amount the trainee paid for the course. This ensures that there is always a pool of drivers to tap on, similar to the current private bus driver vocational license scheme; and also could provide flexible training (shorter, part time, etc) for new captains who already have some form of experience (e.g. have class 4, BDVL, etc).
Further training is then undertaken by indivdual PTOs for company specific ops, as well for different routes.
Additional roles this organisation should undertake includes some functions which TfL is currently performing, such as placement of diversion signs during diversions and bus interior specification, design, and in the case of SG also procurement of buses and management of routes.
This could be carved out of the current bus section in LTA.
-
Originally posted by Bus Stopping:
The problem with this is that the cost of training is very high in terms of opportunity, time and money.
It takes two months to train a single bus captain, with 2 months of full time pay, and there are already shortage in training slots.
what i heard was trainee bus captains only receive some sort of pocket money allowance only? like $10+ per day? or is it nowadays trainee bus captains are given full wages as a new entrant bus captain?